editorial "4/2" compromise no quick fix

Author: [no author name found]

Believe it or not, it would seem that the end of what one former editor of The Middlebury Campus dubbed "Middlebury's own Vietnam War" is in sight. After investing millions of dollars in infrastructure and personnel, College administrators have at long last listened to students' perennial protests - the commons system as we have known it is hitting the chopping block.

Are the administration's promises to fix the housing dilemma too good to be true? The so-called "4/2" plan, which would mandate commons affiliation for four years but allow juniors and seniors to live in decentralized housing, seems a fitting solution for the College's commons woes. Administrators, perhaps rightly so, are oozing cautiously enthusiastic optimism.

The advantages of the new system are fairly obvious, the clearest benefit being the plan's promise of housing equity for upperclassmen, a prospect unattainable under the current plan for the commons proposed in 1998. The system would also allow for the natural growth of student experiences during their tenure at the College, providing more institutional support for first-year and sophomore students while allowing upperclassmen more autonomy. And, of course, the plan seems fueled in no small part by the realization that the full implementation of the original commons vision is financially infeasible.

The "4/2" plan marks a drastic revision, however, to the goals set forth by College administrators almost 10 years ago, and however smooth the withdrawal might be, the repercussions of the original vision will not go quietly into the night. The new plan is framed in many ways as a compromise - satisfying students' frustration with the system while hesitating to fully abolish the institutional framework in which the College is already invested. While this compromise, in its earliest stages, promises a fitting evolution of the College's residential life, the "4/2" plan is no quick fix, and, if executed poorly, will only provide new fodder for perennial complaints about residential life on campus.

We urge the administration to tread thoughtfully and carefully. The vast majority of students have not yet had a say in the formation and adoption of the plan. We predict that most will respond with optimism - if only because that coveted Atwater suite will no longer seem so unattainable - but we hope that significant efforts will be made to reach out to students. As the primary participants in and benefactors of a residential life system, students must be invested in a reformed system in order for it to have any chance of success.

Most importantly, serious thought needs to be given to the character and duties of commons before decentralizing junior and senior housing. Already the most successful commons are arguably those with the fewest resources - students have long praised Brainerd and Cook for fostering a sense of community in the face of students' dissatisfaction with room draw options. We hope that individual commons can continue to design and implement programming that engages and unites students. This task, already difficult, will only become more challenging, but we hope - perhaps in vain - that the spirit of the commons will live on.

Ultimately, the commons must embody more on campus than a color-coded Nalgene or the occasional Fondue Friday. While the original vision for the commons system is not a feasible or particularly appropriate option for a school like Middlebury, some benefits of the system are integral to the College's understanding of itself as a place of growth, community and fellowship. We hope that the implementation of the "4/2" plan does not come at the cost of the commons.